5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 18 August 2001 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Peace and Order Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of being involved in the murder of two sisters.
7.  According to the applicant's version of the facts, during his questioning by the police, despite his request, he was not provided with the assistance of a lawyer. He was allegedly given electric shocks and beaten on the soles of his feet by police officers.
8.  In his statements dated 19 August 2001, drafted by the police, the applicant confessed to his involvement in the murder and gave a detailed explanation as to the facts of the incident.
9.  On 22 August 2001 the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court authorised the extension of the applicant's detention in police custody for three more days.
10.  On 24 August 2001, upon the Public Prosecutor's request, the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Kadıköy Forensic Medicine Department. According to the medical report, the applicant had a purple and pink lesion of 15x13 cm under his right foot and two lesions of 3x5 cm and 8x10cm under his left foot. The report concluded that it would be appropriate for the applicant to rest for ten days.
11.  Later the same day, the applicant was taken to the office of the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor, where he reiterated his earlier confessions and assured him that he had not been ill-treated by the police officers. When he was asked to comment on the medical report dated 24 August 2001, the applicant contended that his feet were in that condition due to the fact that he had been wearing his shoes for too long.
12.  The applicant reiterated these statements before the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court, who ordered his detention on remand.
13.  According to a forensic report dated August 2001, the applicant's fingerprints did not match those found at the crime scene.
14.  On 18 September 2001 the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant and joined him as the seventh accused in the murder case which was already pending before the Kadıköy Assize Court.
15.  On 10 October 2001 the Istanbul Bar Association appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant.
16.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant appeared before the Kadıköy Assize Court for the first time. He denied all allegations against him. He contended that during his detention in police custody he had confessed to the crime under coercion. Moreover, he maintained that the police had threatened to take him back to the police station if he did not also confess before the Public Prosecutor and the judge at the Magistrates' Court.
17.  At the hearing on 8 August 2002, the intervening parties, who were the parents of the victims, maintained that they believed that the applicant was innocent.
18.  On 4 December 2003 the Assize Court convicted the applicant and another accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment; it acquitted the other accused. When convicting the applicant the court relied mainly on his statements given at the police station, before the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court and before the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor.
19.  On 6 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court. In its detailed decision, the Court of Cassation held that the applicant's statements, which were taken at the preliminary stage of the proceedings in accordance with the law, provided evidence of his involvement in the murder.
20.  On 7 January 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor, complaining about the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected during his detention in police custody. He also submitted the medical report dated 24 August 2001.
21.  On 5 April 2002 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution of the police officers. He held that the applicant, in his statements given at the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor's office, had confessed to having committed the murders and had maintained that he had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment.
22.  On 3 May 2002 the applicant objected to the decision of non-prosecution before the Eyüp Criminal Court.
23.  On 25 July 2002 the Eyüp Criminal Court dismissed his objection.